My opinions inline.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 6:45 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] List of Bob's NEW issues (really only six) well, ok
seven
Comments on
Bob's issues:
Apx C examples http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200606/msg00217.html
These sample
message flows are tied to figure 2 - do we really want to update that one too?
I don't really care much except it does make more work for the monkeys
:-)
MG: I don’t mind seeing these examples added, however I think
the tie to figure 2 is a perfect excuse to avoid the work altogether. I’m fine
with seeing the message examples added with or without the update to figure 2.
Someone will have to produce them though.
Sequence Expiry
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200606/msg00216.html
Do we really
need an entire new section for this or can we just add a line of text to where
Expires is used saying something like:
This value indicates the time at which the Sequence SHOULD be
terminated.
Or just change
sentences like:
This element, if present, of type xs:duration specifies the
duration for the offered Sequence.
To:
This element, if present, of type xs:duration specified the
duration of time until the Sequence SHOULD be terminated.
MG: I have not had enough time to think about this
one. I am not going to be ready to make a decision about this on today’s call.
Rollover by RM
Source http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200606/msg00212.html
on 1) that an
impl detail, nothing on the wire from a spec perspective
on 2) an impl
choice - it may not choose to close/terminate the sequence at all
I suggest:
Close w/no action
MG: I haven’t thought deeply about this one, but
that was my first inclination as well.
What does not
receive mean? http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200606/msg00200.html
Just editoral,
I'm ok with it.
MG: I’m not sure, I can try to be ready to decide
on this one on the call but no promises.
Can’t respond
if Sequence not known http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200606/msg00193.html
Editorial, not
sure its needed since the definition of UnknownSeq fault says its sent whenever
we see an RM element referring to a Seq we don't know about, so do we really
need to say that for each and every RM element? Seems a bit noisy but I'm
not going to lay down in the road over it. My preference would be to close
w/no action since I think the Fault text already covers this.
MG: Agree the fault text already covers it, but I’m
fine with adding this.
Terminate
sequence, fault not specified http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200606/msg00192.html
See previous
issue comment - this is getting a bit verbose.
MG: Agree, still I’m OK with it.
Add
detail and specificity to fault descriptions http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200606/msg00190.html
I would like to
see a specific proposal (actual proposed text) before I can know for sure if I
like the idea of this or not.
MG:
I’m having a similar problem with this one.
thanks
-Doug